Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
CHERYL PATERSON, AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF ROBERT PATERSON, PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT, v. JODY L. SIKORSKI, DAVID CODDINGTON, KEITH CODDINGTON, DEFENDANT–RESPONDENTS, JOSEPH CACCHIO AND JUANITA CACCHIO, DEFENDANTS–APPELLANTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint and all cross claims against defendants Joseph Cacchio and Juanita Cacchio are dismissed.
Memorandum: In this action seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly arising from a motor vehicle accident, Joseph Cacchio (Cacchio) and his wife (defendants) appeal from an order denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them. There is no dispute regarding the facts. The accident occurred when the vehicle operated by Cacchio and owned by his wife stopped on a highway on-ramp, and a second vehicle, operated by defendant David Coddington (Coddington) came to a complete stop behind it. A third vehicle, operated by defendant Jody L. Sikorski, failed to stop and rear-ended the Coddington vehicle, propelling it into defendants' vehicle. Plaintiff commenced this action on behalf of her son, a passenger in the Coddington vehicle.
We agree with defendants that Supreme Court erred in denying their motion. “It is well established that, absent extraordinary circumstances not present here ․, injuries resulting from a rear-end collision are not proximately caused by any negligence on the part of the operator of a preceding vehicle when the rear-ended vehicle had successfully and completely stopped behind such vehicle prior to the collision” (Schmidt v. Guenther, 103 AD3d 1162, 1162–1163; see Princess v. Pohl, 38 AD3d 1323, 1323–1324, lv denied 9 NY3d 802). Inasmuch as plaintiff does not dispute that Coddington's vehicle, in which plaintiff's son was a passenger, came to a full stop behind defendants' vehicle before being rear-ended by Sikorski's vehicle, and in the absence of extraordinary factors not present here (cf. Tutrani v. County of Suffolk, 10 NY3d 906, 907–908), the court erred in denying defendants' motion.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 13–01876
Decided: June 13, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)